Did you know that a recent survey concludes that nearly half of
everyone that sees the video of the 9/11 collapse of WTC7 suspects
controlled demolition? Now is the perfect time to remind you of the 2009
peer-reviewed paper by Harrit et al., called Active Thermitic Material
Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe. This is
a summary of our extensive essay that covers the paper and the attempts
to discredit it. We need your help to fund the completion of an
independent study that is verifying the presence of nano-thermite in the
WTC dust, so please donate to support chemical engineer Mark Basile.

The thermitic red layer of the reported tiny red/gray bi-layered
chips found in the dust belongs to a novel class of energetic materials
that government funded US laboratories have been developing since the
1990´s. Even the federal agency in charge of the supposed investigation
of the collapsed towers helped to develop this type of material, which
may help to explain why it refuses to look for evidence of it in the
dust.

This new study is going to be a real
game-changer because the replication is necessary to confirm
controversial research conclusions in the world of science, so
please donate at http://markbasile.org.We have added a
PayPal option that goes directly to Mark Basile, as
demonstrated in a
screen shot of a test donation. We did this for anyone that
was perhaps weary to donate to a third party collecting the
funds.

Friday, December 27, 2013

The coincidence cited in this video, made by blog contributor Stewart Bradley, regarding the pilot of flight 77 having participated in a drill prior to 9/11 (where an aircraft crashed into the Pentagon) is not a coincidence that I think has much merit. But I don't throw the baby out with the bathwater like the 9/11 debunking dummies.

Wednesday, December 25, 2013

Seasons greeting from your old friend Santa! My, my, Christmas is
just two short weeks away, and everyone here at the North Pole can’t
wait to deliver presents to all you nice boys and girls this year. Yes,
Jolly ol’ St. Nicholas hopes you’re all being as good as can be!

But today, Santa would like to tell you all about something very
naughty, something very, very naughty indeed. Dear children, have you
not heard? Why, 9/11 was an inside job! Oh, ho, ho, my, yes it was!
I mean, look at the facts, boys and girls! We already know the Bush
administration was itching to go to war in Iraq, now, don’t we? Yes,
indeed we do, my darling ones! The Downing Street memo proves that
beyond a shadow of a doubt. Then you look at the Presidential Daily
Briefing of Aug. 6, 2001, the one headlined “Bin Laden Determined to
Strike in U.S.” Ignored! Why, children, they threw that briefing aside
like used wrapping paper on Christmas morning, didn’t they?

And remember, sweet little ones, Bin Laden never claimed
responsibility for the attacks until 2004. Do you know how many years
that is, boys and girls? Something was up the government’s sleeve, and
I’ll let you in on a little secret: It wasn’t sugar plums, oh, no! No,
it was the ties between the bin Laden and Bush families. They’ve been
under the mistletoe for decades, if you catch your old pal Kris
Kringle’s meaning! I’ve checked my list twice, and it seems Arbusto
Energy, a Bush business, had financial connections to Salem bin Laden,
half-brother of Osama. The CIA actually helped create and fund al-Qaeda
right around the time Bush Senior was the agency’s director—ho, ho, ho,
ol’ H.W. stuffed their pockets as fat as a Christmas goose!

Now, as for the towers themselves: The type of steel they used melts
at a temperature of about 2,700 degrees Fahrenheit, and as I’m sure all
you smart little boys and girls know, jet fuel burns at 1,500 degrees,
tops. My darlings, you’d need quite a Yule log to create that extra
1,200 degrees, wouldn’t you? Oh, what a glorious sight it would be!

Of course, you do know what they found in the Ground Zero debris,
don’t you? Would you like St. Nicholas to tell you? Well, then, hop up
on his lap and I’ll whisper it in your ear: traces of nano-thermite.
Does that jingle any bells upstairs? Nano-thermite is an explosive
compound, children, capable of making the biggest Christmas cracker you
ever saw! So what in the name of Donner and Blitzen was it doing in the
world’s largest banking complex? Was Lehman Brothers or one of the
insurance companies stockpiling explosives? No, children. You find
nano-thermite where there’s been a controlled demolition. Ever see a
controlled demolition, little ones? That’s where the whole building
plummets straight downward like a plumb bob and every floor is
destroyed. Even if the building is struck in the middle.

Oh, dear, perhaps ol’ Santa has just gone a little nutty in the head,
like dear Mrs. Claus repeatedly likes to claim! Perhaps, much like Mrs.
Claus, Santa would be better off pretending the facts don’t exist. But
you believe, don’t you, children? You believe in Santa’s theory.

Now, I’m not saying the hijackers weren’t naughty. They were very,
very naughty indeed. But if you want to really talk naughty, there’s not
enough coal in Santa’s sack for a government that throws its own
citizens under the sleigh just to gain political power.

Ho, ho, ho, so many questions dance through Santa’s head! What about
the six eyewitnesses who saw a low-flying jet immediately after Flight
93 crashed in Shanksville, children? Why was debris from the flight
found miles away from the crash site? And why did the BBC incorrectly
report that 7 World Trade Center had collapsed moments before it
actually did? Talk about a snow job, eh, young ones? Why, it’s a
veritable winter wonderland!

Perhaps this Christmas, Santa will bring some of you very
well-behaved—and discreet—young children some nice, shiny new computers
to play with, so you can go to 911truth.org, watch “Loose Change” on
YouTube, and see for yourselves. Because if you ask Santa, the truth
needs to come out in order to properly honor the memory of the victims
and awaken a duped populace, slumbering away in their cozy beds, living
in dreamland. We can close our eyes and drink the government eggnog, or
we can raise our voices and demand to know what really happened. Isn’t
that right, boys and girls?

Well, I’ve still got a lot of toys to build before Christmas Eve, my
little ones, but I’ll be visiting you all very soon—ho, ho, ho, that is
if I’m not jailed as an enemy combatant for asking simple questions!
Because that’s what they fucking do, you know.

Tell the NY TImes:The Evidence Isn't Hard to Find...If You Just Look

Yesterday
New York Times Chief Washington Correspondent was the
guest on CSPAN’s Washington Journal, where he had this to say about :

“We
have not found any evidence so far – that doesn’t mean there’s none
there – but we’ve not found any evidence so far to suggest that the
building collapses were caused by anything other than the two airplanes
that flew into them.”

Sanger
was responding to a question from a caller who wanted to know why,
despite the massive billboard standing right outside the New York Times
Building, the paper of record had failed to “fairly and objectively
cover this crucial issue.”

Now
with a senior representative of the New York Times on the record
saying, “We’ve not found any evidence so far,” it is time to let Sanger
and the editors know that the evidence is there. All they need to do is look and they’ll easily find it. Contact the NY Times Today!

Contact the NY Times Today

Last
week over 1,000 people contacted the BBC in response to our action
alert regarding the BBC’s one-sided article on the ReThink911 campaign.
Let’s surpass that level of support today. Please take 2 minutes right
now to contact David Sanger and the NY Times editors. Just copy-paste
the letter below, or write your own. Please be sure to Bcc us at
AE911Truth so that we can keep a count of how many emails are sent.

On
Sunday, December 23, 2013, you, Mr. Sanger, told a caller on CSPAN’s
Washington Journal that the New York Times had not found any evidence so
far to suggest that the collapse of WTC Building 7 was caused by
anything other than an indirect result of the airplanes flying into the
Twin Towers. I am writing to tell you that the evidence is indeed there,
and I urge you to look into it. 2,100 architects and engineers have
signed a petition at AE911Truth.org calling for a new investigation
based on this evidence. The following points are just a few from among
the growing body of evidence that overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that Building 7 came down by controlled demolition.

Building 7 accelerated downward at absolute free-fall for the first few seconds of its 7-second symmetrical collapse.

However,
a building cannot undergo free-fall if it is meeting any resistance
from any of the columns below it, as any resistance would slow the
building’s descent.

Therefore, the lower section of the building could not have been “crushed” by the upper freely falling section.

The
destruction of at least 8 stories of the lower section of the building
had to have been accomplished by other means, i.e. explosives or
incendiaries, to allow the upper section of the building to fall through
it in free-fall. Learn more about the free-fall of Building 7.

There is clear evidence of melted steel at Building 7, first reported on by the NY Times, and incendiaries in numerous dust samples from Ground Zero.

As
you well understand, the implications of the controlled demolition of
Building 7 are extraordinary, since it is integral to the 9/11 events,
and therefore the question of what happened to Building 7 is of the
greatest importance. I thank you in advance for taking the time to
seriously examine this crucial issue.

In an attempt to reconcile the thermite evidence with the official story, debunker Frank Greening once proposed that aluminium from the planes reacted with rust on the steel structures, "inducing violent thermite explosions", and that this "repeated in a rapidly accelerating, and increasingly violent cascade of destruction",
resulting in the global collapse of the towers. In other words, he
proposed that the twin towers were destroyed by thermite ... naturally!

Dr.
Greening is, I believe, a chemist so it is only fair to look at this
field of study first of all. One of his most well known arguments is
that there could have been natural thermite reactions within the tower
fires. He lists those ingredients which are necessary for this natural
thermite and shows that all of these ingredients were present, so his
argument follows that a natural thermite reaction could have taken
place. Now I will never claim to be good at chemistry but I know that if
I leave margarine, flour, sugar and fruit in a cupboard, when I next
open the cupboard I will not find a fruit crumble. Some mechanism is
required to convert the ingredients. Similarly, if I take these same
ingredients, set them alight and throw them out the window, I still will
not get my fruit crumble. The mechanism must have some order. Dr.
Greening fails to provide any explanation or narrative for these
required mechanisms but rather relies on simply ticking off the
ingredients and falling back on the unfailing support of his accolytes.
It came as an enormous surprise to me that some educated people have
been taken in by this, most notably and recently was Manuel Garcia, in
his Counterpunch article. What we are being asked to swallow in place of
our absent fruit crumble, is that the tonnes of aluminium aircraft
parts were powderised upon impact, thoroughly mixed with tonnes of rust
from the towers steel superstructure in exactly the required proportion
to form tonnes of thermite, which then hung around for about an hour
before distributing itself to key structural points throughout the
tower, then igniting in a complex sequence to cause the towers'
collapse. It is granted that a good imagination is a requirement for a
good scientist, but this just abuses the privilege. Perhaps the name for
this natural thermite should instead be intelligent thermite, or
intelligent malevolent thermite.

As both a 9/11 truther and a Darwinism heretic,
I find the fruit crumble analogy and 'intelligent malevolent thermite'
designation doubly scrumptious. It is hard to believe anyone with the
slightest semblance of rationality, never mind a professional chemist,
would seriously suggest such a thing, but what do you expect from
someone who denies Newton's third law?!

"His research was hardly shocking. It has been backed up by plenty of
other experts, including those at Popular Mechanics who published a special report called Debunking the 9/11 Myths." - BBC

Debunking the REAL 9/11 Myths: Why Popular Mechanics Can't Face Up to Reality

I am happy to announce that my latest article is finally available online! My newest work, titled Debunking the REAL 9/11 Myths: Why Popular Mechanics Can't Face Up to Reality,
is a point-by-point refutation of Popular Mechanics' weak arguments
regarding the controlled demolition of the three WTC buildings. If you
thought Popular Mechanics' updated 2011 book refuted the so-called
"conspiracy theories" about 9/11, think again.

Editor’s note: This is Part 10 of 10 (see Part 9),
the conclusion of an extensive report by 9/11 researcher Adam Taylor
that exposes the fallacies and flaws in the arguments made by the
writers and editors of Popular Mechanics (PM) in the latest edition of
Debunking 9/11 Myths. We encourage you to submit your own reviews of the book at Amazon.com and other places where it is sold. (Quotes from PM are shown in red and with page numbers.)

"Jonathan Kay, an editor at the National Post and author of Among the
Truthers, said 9/11 conspiracy theories resonate for a reason." - BBC

ReThink911 Keeps Building 7 in the Headlines

Let the BBC Editor Know the Public Doesn’t Buy Their One-Sided Coverage

Plus: NY Times Billboard Continues through December!

Yesterday the BBC published an article about the ongoing ReThink911 ad campaign in Ottawa. Featured on the BBC’s News homepage still today, the article has been seen by hundreds of thousands of readers.

This
piece marks the fifth mainstream news article about ReThink911’s Ottawa
campaign since the announcement of the campaign on November 20. But
unlike its Canadian counterparts, the BBC has a tendency for falseness
and one-sidedness rivaled only by the likes of Fox News.

Tell the BBC Editor Their Reporting Is a Journalistic Disgrace

Please
take 2 minutes right now to let the Editor of the BBC’s North America
edition know how you feel about their reporting. Just copy-paste the
letter below, or write your own. Please be sure to Bcc us at AE911Truth
so that we can keep a count of how many emails are sent.

The
BBC’s article on the ReThink911 ad campaign in Ottawa is a journalistic
disgrace. The number of false claims and one-sided maneuvers is simply
astounding.

Most
disturbing is how the article falsely labeled Jonathan Kay and Popular
Mechanics “experts,” while neglecting to quote a single one of the 2,100
engineering and architecture experts who are so critical of the
official account that they are demanding a new World Trade Center
investigation. In addition, the article provides links to every source
it references that supports the official account of 9/11, but not a
single link to a source critiquing the official account.

With
regard to the poll commissioned by ReThink911 and conducted by the
polling firm YouGov, the article falsely, groundlessly calls it
“unscientific,” and then conveniently neglects to embed or link to the
30-second video shown to the poll respondents. It seems rather obvious
the video would be of interest to your readers.

The
article disrespectfully caricatures 9/11 activists by likening the
group in Hamilton, Ontario to terrorists belonging to a “cell,” and the
article does not mention even once the name of the ad campaign – or its
website ReThink911.org.

If
your goal was to mislead the public about the very serious pursuit of
truth regarding the events of 9/11, congratulations, I would say you
succeeded admirably – except I think most people can see through this
atrocious, unabashedly one-sided “reporting.”

If
you care at all about preserving the BBC’s journalistic integrity, I
would suggest you make up for this horrible disservice to the public
with an article that gives equal and unbiased attention to the more than
2,100 architects and engineers calling for a new investigation into the
destruction of Building 7.

Sincerely,

[Your Name]

NY Times Billboard to Continue through December

Finally,
we are thrilled to inform you that we have extended our NY Times
billboard through the end of December for an absolutely rock bottom
price. Our audacious billboard continues to greet reporters and editors
on the way to work everyday. Soon we will be announcing new actions to
hold the NY Times accountable for its lack of coverage of Building 7.
Stay tuned!

Wednesday, December 18, 2013

Carl Sagan makes some great points in this 2 minute clip especially about being able to think for yourself using logic ('the science way of thinking') - to be sceptical of those in authority.

Crucially he said "Science is more than a body of knowledge. It's a way of thinking".

The danger we face comes from false pseudo-scientific claims. We must be mindful of trick arguments or evidence-bereft arguments being pushed by those with hidden agendas, especially people with close ties to the US establishment.

The danger from false Government claims is that they tend to do great harm because they often serve interests that are not beneficial to ordinary people, tending to favour corporate profit over human wellbeing or the desires of various special interest groups or large scale geopolitical (war) ambitions.

If we can think for ourselves we should not fear any argument, whether it is considered a 'fringe' idea or Government dogma, because we will be able to interrogate the matter using reason and established scientific principles. If there is controversy we should be able to understand the essential arguments being put by the leading experts in the debate.

Tuesday, December 17, 2013

Ever since the cessation of the 9/11 attacks more than 12 years ago, people have both actively and passively wondered how the 'terrorists' could be so spectacularly successful. Within the truth movement especially, there has been a marked inability to agree on what actually took place in the skys that day, with some (the no planers) arguing that there weren't any aircraft involved at all (!). Luckily, a new article is available which clears up this mess, revisiting the hard facts that are constantly buried under a mountain of talking points. It concludes that there is a narrow range of possible strategys which could account for all the phenomenon seen during the 9/11 attacks.

The trajectorys taken by the planes, for instance, indicates that flight 93 was destined to hit the pentagon, while flight 77 was intended to crash in a populated area somewhere in ohio or kentucky. There is only one plausible explanation for why this did not happen, and it ties in heavily with the live-fly drill, vigilant warrior, that was taking place on 9/11. The topic of aircraft being swapped in mid-air has been brought to the attention of the moderators at scientificmethod911 numerous times: On their part, they have remained firmly silent on the matter, for obvious reasons. While its true that we can never rule anything out for certain, some people are definately going to have to confront reality, and seriously consider the need to re-evaluate their personal stances!

Monday, December 16, 2013

One of the most frustrating claims I hear from
DEW supporters is that "you need to read Judy Wood's book before you can
critique her arguments." They of course ignore the fact that she's had her
arguments debunked over and over again for the
past several years, and to the best of my knowledge these critiques of her work
have gone unrefuted. But DEW supporters seem to think that if you don't debunk
Dr. Wood's book, you haven’t debunked Dr. Wood. This would only be true if
there was some kind of new phenomenal evidence presented in her book that has
never been discussed elsewhere by her in her online articles. I’ll freely admit
that I haven't read the book, partly because I doubt there's anything
substantially new in it that hasn't already been refuted by others.
And I have good reason to think this.

When I debated with DEW supporter
"Emmanuel Goldstein" (whose real name is Thomas
Potter) on Amazon, he listed off 41 points that supposedly show
that the Towers were "dustified." He's obviously read her book (given
that he defends it so passionately; and if he hasn't, then who's he to
criticize others for not reading it?), and supposedly based his arguments
off of information from said book. And I was able to immediately respond to
every single one of these points because I had heard them all before.
I saw nothing new in any of his arguments, and had an answer ready to go for
each of them. So there are really only two possibilities: either there's
nothing new in Judy Wood's book, or there's some ground breaking evidence presented
in the book that DEW supporters don't feel like sharing with the rest of us.
Either way, I still see no great incentive to buy her book. I may someday if I
feel like wasting a chunk of my cash (her book currently sells anywhere from 45
to 60 dollars, and there's no preview for it on Amazon). Below I've reproduced
my refutations of Mr.
"Goldstein's" arguments, which I hope will help others in dealing
with this absurd disinformation.

"1 The Twin Towers were
destroyed faster than physics can explain by a free fall speed
'collapse.'"

Agreed. But this does not automatically mean
that DEWs were used. And Dr. Wood's own calculations on the collapse rates of
the Towers have been shown to be ludicrous.

"4 The rail lines, the tunnels and most of
the rail cars had only light damage, if any."

Quote:

“Another source of data that is
cited by proponents of the `missing debris' hypothesis relates to the
non-catastrophic damage to the Bathtub, the ground zero region which was
encircled by subterranean walls to hold back water from the Hudson River.No credible analysis or quantitative
measurements have been offered by the proponents of the `missing' debris
hypothesis to support the claim that the Bathtub should have been
catastrophically damaged.

The measured seismic activity explains why there
was no catastrophic damage to the Bathtub:

Earthquakes of ML 2.3 are not known to cause any
structural damage in buildings. In the eastern U.S. that threshold is believed
to be close to or above ML 4 to 4.5.

From a paper by James Gourley, the Bathtub
survived much more substantialseismic activity in the past:

Additional credible data is available that
indicates NYC is located in an active seismic zone. A search of the Advanced
National Seismic System catalog of earthquakes from 1970 to 2005, inside an
area between 38N and 43N Latitude, and between 71W and 76W Longitude (an area
that runs from just south of New Jersey north to the middle of New York state,
and from just west of New Jersey east to Rhode Island) reveals that at least 21
earthquakes having a magnitude greater than 3.0 occurred in that area during
those 34 years.”http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200702/Implausibility-Directed-Energy-Beam-Demolish-WTC-by-Gregory-Jenkins.pdf

"5 The WTC underground mall survived well, witnessed by Warner Bros. Road
Runner and friends. There were reports that "The Gap" was
looted."

See points 3 and 4.

"6 The seismic impact was minimal, far too small based on a comparison
with the Kingdome controlled demolition."

"25 Vertical round holes were cut into buildings 4, 5 and 6, and into
Liberty street in front of Bankers Trust, and into Vesey Street in front of
WTC6, plus a cylindrical arc was cut into Bankers Trust."

"26 All planes except top secret missions were ordered down until 10:31
a.m. (when only military flights were allowed to resume), after both towers
were destroyed, and only two minutes (120 seconds) after WTC 1 had been
destroyed."

Interesting and good points to raise concerning the lack of air defense on
9/11. But not evidence of DEWs.

"27 Approximately 1,400 motor vehicles were towed away, toasted in strange
ways, during the destruction of the Twin Towers."

So you think WTC7 was demolished with DEWs? If the columns in the building were
cut, the pile could fold and fit into the footprint. Which by the way is the
point of demolitions with explosives.

"35 Eyewitness testimony about toasted cars, instant disappearance of
people by "unexplained" waves, a plane turning into a mid-air
fireball, electrical power cut off moments before WTC 2 destruction, and the
sound of explosions."

Evidence for any of this? Explosions would be consistent with demolition with
explosives.

"36 Eyewitness testimony of Scott-pack explosions in fire trucks and fire
trucks exploding that were parked near the WTC."

Many of the trucks were on fire. Of course things in them would explode.

"37 There were many flipped cars in the neighborhood of the WTC complex
near trees with full foliage."

The collapse of two 110 story buildings can do that ya know.

"38 Magnetometer readings in Alaska recorded abrupt shifts in the earth's
magnetic field with each of the events at the WTC on 9/11."

"39 Hurricane Erin, located just off Long Island on 9/11/01, went
virtually unreported in the days leading up to 9/11, including omission of this
Hurricane on the morning weather map, even though that portion of the Atlantic
Ocean was shown on the map."

Maybe it wasn't talked about on 9/11 because the worst terrorist attack in history
was happening?

"40 Sillystring, the appearance of curious cork-screw trails."

Not sure what that's supposed to be. Elaborate please.

"41 Uncanny similarities with the Hutchison Effect, where the Hutchison
Effect exhibits all of the same phenomena listed above."

I am a concerned citizen who wants the real truth about 9/11 exposed. I find science fascinating. I also enjoy researching the history of the origins of religion.
Bio: http://www.scientificmethod911.org/authors/taylor_author.html
Facebook page: http://tinyurl.com/3zynhh3

Sunday, December 15, 2013

During the 9/11FreeFall promotional interview for the new WTC dust study, the host Andrew Steele asked me how I had gotten involved in the 9/11 truth movement. I explained that I originally began to explore the alternative media on the internet for research articles about geopolitics, which led to my learning about a topic that is never mentioned on CNN: false-flag attacks. I soon found out that one outstanding medium is Information Clearing House. Please check it out and consider becoming a paying member:

Dear
Information
Clearing
House
Readers:
To
protect
our
independence,
we'll
never
run
ads.
We
take
no
government
funds.
We
survive
on
donations
averaging
about
$16.
Now
is
the
time
we
ask.
If
everyone
reading
this
gave
$1,
our
fundraiser
would
be
done
within
an
hour.
We
are
an
independent,
not
for
profit
that
runs
one
of
the
top
alternate
news
and
information
websites
in
the
world.
We
have
few
staff
member
but
serve
millions
of
users,
and
have
costs like
any
other
top
site:
servers,
power,
programs,
Insurance,
taxes
and
salaries...

Tuesday, December 10, 2013

Last month, I held a briefing on drone strikes, a cold-blooded military euphemism for a method of waging war that is more properly described as "remote killing." Last year, a mindless killing machine - an American drone aircraft - killed an innocent grandmother as she was harvesting okra outside of the family's home. My friend, the filmmaker Robert Greenwald, brought her family's compelling story to my attention, and I helped to bring them to the attention of Congress and the nation. Robert Greenwald recently released a new documentary with their sad story, and others like it, called Unmanned: America's Drone Wars. I've seen it, and you should too. It's an incredible indictment of remote-controlled death from the skies.

I told you about this movie a few weeks ago, when I shared with you a statement that I made at the briefing. I wrote:

"If you agree with me that, due to the extrajudicial nature of these killings, they should stop, then I welcome you. If you agree with me that, due to the belief that collateral damage in the form of the death of innocent people, an adult or a child, should never be acceptable, particularly at the will of one man, then I welcome you. If you agree with me that the unintended consequence of civilian deaths attributable to drone strikes, and the public opinion that has mobilized against this in every nation that has been victimized by drone strikes, ultimately engenders more hatred toward America than it could possibly extinguish through death, then I welcome you. And if you have yet to make up your mind about the pros and cons of these drone strikes, these miniature acts of war, then I am particularly glad that you're here this morning, or that you're listening from near or far.

"I can think of no better person to shepherd us through the intricacies of drone use abroad than this person who I am proud to call my friend, Robert Greenwald. And as you see, he has a new documentary called 'Unmanned: America's Drone Wars' coming out, that will be essential viewing for every American with a conscience. I urge everyone to see the full documentary and ask the pressing questions that will come to mind."

Watch it. And then pass it on to your friends and family. Because it's time that this secret war is no longer a secret.

Together, a few months ago, we lovers of peace stopped a war with Syria. Maybe, just maybe, we can stop remote killings too.

Thanks for all you have done, will do, and can do. Blessed are the peacemakers.

Peace,

Alan

P.S. If you're going to share one thing on Facebook or Twitter this year, this documentary ought to be it. Share it with your friends, your family, your co-workers, and your neighbors. Share it with the world. Because if we have any hope of ending this, then the world needs to know.

Monday, December 9, 2013

The evidence for the presence of thermite at the World Trade Center (WTC) on 9/11 is extensive and compelling. This evidence has accumulated to the point at which we can say that WTC thermite is no longer a hypothesis, it is a tested and proven theory. Therefore it is not easy to debunk it. But the way to do so is not difficult to understand.

To debunk the thermite theory, one must first understand the evidence for it and then show how all of that evidence is either mistaken or explained by other phenomena. Here are the top ten categories of evidence for thermite at the WTC.

Molten metal: There are numerous photographs and eyewitness testimonies to the presence of molten metal at the WTC, both in the buildings and in the rubble. No legitimate explanation has been provided for this evidence other than the exothermic reaction of thermite, which generates the temperatures required and molten iron as a product.

The fires at Ground Zero could not be put out for several months. Despite the application of millions of gallons of water to the pile, several rainfall events at the site, and the use of a chemical fire suppressant, the fires would not subside. Thermal images made by satellite showed that the temperatures in the pile were far above that expected in the debris from a typical structure fire. Only thermite, which contains its own oxidant and therefore cannot be extinguished by smothering it, can explain this evidence.

Numerous eyewitnesses who were fleeing the area described the air mass as a hot wind filled with burning particles.[1] This evidence agrees with the presence of large quantities of thermite byproducts in the air, including hot metallic microspheres and still-reacting agglomerates of thermite.

Numerous vehicles were scorched or set on fire in the area. Photographic evidence shows that cars parked within the lower-level garage areas of the WTC complex burned as if impacted by a super-hot wind like that described by the eyewitnesses. All non-metallic parts of the cars, including the plastic, rubber, and glass, were completely burned off by a hot blast.

There was a distinct “white smoke” present—clearly different from smoke caused by a normal structural fire—as indicated by eyewitnesses and photographic evidence.[2] The second major product of the thermite reaction is aluminum oxide, which is emitted as a white solid shortly after reaction.

Peer-reviewed, scientific research confirmed the presence of extremely high temperatures at the WTC. The high temperatures were evidenced by metallic and other microspheres, along with evaporated metals and silicates. These findings were confirmed by 9/11 investigators and by scientists at an independent company and at the United States Geologic Survey.

The environmental data collected at Ground Zero in the months following 9/11 indicate that violent incendiary fires, like those produced by thermite, occurred on specific dates. Peer-reviewed scientific analysis of these data show that the components of thermite spiked to extraordinary levels on specific dates in both the air and aerosol emissions at Ground Zero.

There is also a great deal of indirect evidence for the thermite theory. This includes the attempts by NIST to downplay the evidence for thermite. It also includes things like a weak effort by Rupert Murdoch’s National Geographic Channel to discredit the ability of thermite to cut structural steel, which was itself roundly discredited by one independent investigator. It is now unquestionable that thermite can cut structural steel as needed for a demolition.
Therefore, debunking the WTC thermite theory is not easy but is very straightforward. Doing so simply requires addressing the evidence listed above point by point, and showing in each case how an alternative hypothesis can explain that evidence better. Given the scientific grounding of the thermite theory, use of the scientific method, including experiments and peer-reviewed publications, would be essential to any such debunking effort.

That is almost certainly why we have seen no such debunking. Instead, the people working to refute the WTC thermite theory have resorted to what might be called a case study in how NOT to respond to scientific evidence.

The failed thermite theory debunkers have produced:

Thousands of chat room comments and other posts yet not one peer-reviewed scientific article.

Alternate hypotheses that have little or no evidence to support them. For example, the mini-nuke hypothesis and the “Star Wars Beam” hypothesis.

The last of these methods has been the most popular. Trying to debunk the tenth piece of evidence for WTC thermite, NIST contractor James Millette produced an unreviewed paper that purports to replicate the finding of nanothermite in the WTC dust. This was apparently organized in the hope that doing so would discredit all of the evidence for thermite at the WTC.

Millette is well known for having helped create the official reports on the analysis of WTC dust. He was responsible for creating the form that was used to pre-screen all materials found in the dust prior to any analysis by official investigators. Those official reports did not mention any of the evidence listed above, in particular failing to report the abundant iron microspheres scattered throughout the WTC dust. Additionally, Millette’s official report team did not find any red-gray chips, let alone nanothermite.

As he worked to debunk the WTC thermite research, Millette was still unable to find any iron microspheres. But he did claim to have finally found the red-gray chips. Curiously, he did not attempt to replicate the testing that would determine if those chips were thermitic.

Claiming to have found the chips, Millette perfomed an XEDS analysis for elemental composition but failed to do any of the other tests including BSE, DSC, the flame test, the MEK test, or measurement of the chip resistivity. Having inexplicably “ashed” the chips at 400 °C in a muffle furnace, thereby proving that they were not the materials of interest (which ignite at 430 °C), Millette ignored the remainder of the study he had set out to replicate. Because he did not do the DSC test, he could not do XEDS of the spheres formed from the chips. Since he had still not found spheres in the dust, he could not test those and this allowed him to ignore the testing of spheres from the thermite reaction.

Millette rested his case on FTIR, which I have also performed on chips from WTC dust but with a much different result. Like Millette’s paper, my FTIR work is not yet part of a peer-reviewed publication and therefore should not be taken as authoritative evidence. There has been less urgency to this supplemental work because what has been done to date has received no legitimate response from the government or from much of the scientific community. That sad fact should be the central point of discussion today.

In any case, Millette attempted only one tenth of the tests in his struggle to replicate (or refute) one tenth of the evidence for thermite at the WTC. His un-reviewed “one percent approach” was nonetheless very convincing to many people, including some of the people who produced the official reports for 9/11. But it is obvious to others that Millette’s work was not a replication in any sense of the word.

I’m looking forward to the peer-reviewed scientific article that finally does replicate the nanothermite paper or any of the other peer-reviewed scientific papers that document the evidence for thermite at the WTC. Hopefully, we can approach those efforts without concerns about the sources and without recalling all the deception and manipulation that preceded them.

Until then, it is important to recognize the difference between the superficial appearance of science and the actual practice of science. Ignoring 90 percent of the evidence is not scientific. And replication of the 10 percent means actually repeating the work. If thermite debunkers and alternate hypothesis supporters can find the courage and focus to step through that challenge, maybe they can begin to add to the discussion.

[1] Here are only a few examples of the hot wind:
“Then the dust cloud hits us. Then it got real hot. It felt like it was going to light up almost.” -Thomas Spinard, FDNY Engine 7
“A wave — a hot, solid, black wave of heat threw me down the block.” – David Handschuh, New York’s Daily News
“When I was running, some hot stuff went down by back, because I didn’t have time to put my coat back on, and I had some — well, I guess between first and second degree burns on my back.” -Marcel Claes, FDNY Firefighter
“And then we’re engulfed in the smoke, which was horrendous. One thing I remember, it was hot. The smoke was hot and that scared me” -Paramedic Manuel Delgado
“I remember making it into the tunnel and it was this incredible amount of wind, debris, heat….” -Brian Fitzpatrick FDNY Firefighter
“A huge, huge blast of hot wind gusting and smoke and dust and all kinds of debris hit me” -Firefighter Louis Giaconelli
“This super-hot wind blew and it just got dark as night and you couldn’t breathe” -Firefighter Todd Heaney

[2] For example, see Joel Meyerowitz, Aftermath: World Trade Center archive. Phaldon Publishing, London, p 178. See photograph of the event on 11/08/01 that shows a stunning and immediate change of cloud-like emissions from the pile, from dark smoke to white cloud.

Claiming the collapse of 7 World Trade Center on an “unprecedented
constellation of events,” the 2nd Circuit on Wednesday chucked
negligence claims against the building’s landlords and developers.

The collapse of the North Tower on Sept. 11, 2001, sent fiery debris
into Tower 7, lighting fires that burned for seven hours on multiple
floors until it destroyed that building and crushed the Con Edison
substation located directly underneath the building.

In 2004, Con Edison sued New York City, the Port Authority, and Tower
7′s owners and developers in Manhattan for negligence. The federal
action has since gone through multiple rounds of appeals, amended
complaints and procedural challenges by different groups of defendants.

A common theme seems to be that the people who do not support a new
investigation either have never read any 9/11 building reports, have no
opinion, or have no idea of what WTC 7 even is.

Here is another LEADER who has never read any of the reports but
firmly believes that the reports cover information substantially.

Recently I've seen McCain plead ignorance, Chomsky
plead no opinion, and now this Congressman pleas that the investigation
has adequately shown the facts but admits to not have actually read any
of investigations himself.

The congressman was asked a question on WTC 7 and the Congressman
says that radical terrorists brought it down; not fires..... But then
again he hasn't read any of the reports so he doesn't know the actual
NIST story is ordinary office fires.